Readers' comments

Simply remove the false propaganda regarding nuclear power, which is limitless, cheap, negligible use of land, tiny environmental impact. And for those who whine 'what do we do with the waste'---digging a hole in the ground is not high-technology (yes, it IS that simple).Nuclear Power Electric Car = Wonderful world for our kids.

I was glad to see that the journalist who wrote this article referred to a reliable scientific source such as Nature Geoscience. I would suggest that in the future, the Economist provides references for all of its sources systematically. They could use the same referencing system as journals such as Nature (where the reference is noted by a superscript in the text and the reader can then access the reference by clicking the superscripted link; by the way, Wikipedia uses a similar system). This way, readers could check for themselves the reliability of the sources cited. I personally put a lot more trust in articles written by experts in the field of climate sciences than on non experts (I recognize an expert by the number and rank of his publications in academic journals).

A newly-released House of Lords Committee report on the economics of renewable energy is sceptical as to whether the UK's targets for renewables can be met; if they are, electricity costs would be about $15bn a year higher than for conventional or nuclear power. The report expresses concern on the reliability of supply of intermittent energy sources, predominantly wind turbines, which to ensure supply would require a much larger installed capacity than for non-intermittent sources. The Committee argues that wind generation should be seen largely as additional capacity, rather than a substitute for the substantial number of old coal and nuclear plants which are scheduled to be replaced by 2020. It stresses the need for a stable investment environment for alternative forms of low carbon power generation, and points out that nuclear energy presents a viable, low-carbon alternative that is not intermittent and can be produced at a significantly lower cost than renewable energy. Fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and storage could be another option but is not yet available. The report argues that it is important that "Incentives to promote those renewables which offer only intermittent supply do not divert attention from, and deter investment in other low carbon generation options and thereby risk power shortages ... the most reliable low-carbon alternative to renewables is nuclear power." The report also says that the Government should not seek to increase the use of biofuels until the costs of carbon abatement associated with its use as an alternative energy supply are reduced. The findings of this report are equally applicable to Australia, where I live, and should be taken aboard by our holier-than-thou on emissions government.http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs.cfm

An 80% reduction in the UK's carbon emissions by 2050 will be achieved, not by any intervention, but by the progessive depletion of fossil fuels. Though strenuously denied by BP's chief economist, its recent statistical review plots the levelling off of global crude oil production and a small decline in 2007, a trend, which if continued, heralds the passing of its peak in 2006.

Gas production is expected to peak by 2020, closely followed by that of coal. BP shows coal production at present rate enduring for but 133 years, but increasing use of gas and coal as a source of liquid fuels, will speed up the depletion of both. Also the better grades of coal are almost gone.

So the real problem is not climate change, because that will be ameliorated by the shrinking availability of fossil fuels, but the economic consequences therefrom. Motor and aviation manufacturing will be the first to go, already signalled by the deteriorating situation in Detroit and by the parked aircraft at Basingstoke.

In a time of shrinking capital availability, its application must be directed to energy saving measures, not to projects like airport extensions designed for an increase in air traffic which cannot be fuelled.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for a government committed to economic growth of the current ilk to come to terms with the reality of fossil fuel depletion. Its concern with climate changes is but a placebo for the real medicine of an energy descent policy.

In my post below I wrote "..without an independent review of the sites.." I use voice recognition software. What I actually said was "an independent review of the science." Apologies for the sloppy editing.

I don't know where you get your stats from - arctic ice has actually INCREASED year on year and the major factor is reduced sunspot activity as noted by BB43 below. One of the major effects of all this delusional rubbish is that it diverts public attention from real environmental issues that we need to do something about - such as the state of the oceans.

Government policies on greenhouse gases, carbon trading and promoting renewable energy are based on a belief that the world is warming due to man-made greenhouse gases -- which is not true: a belief that promoting renewable energy will make a substantial difference to the UK's greenhouse gas emissions - which is not true: a belief that if the UK reduced its greenhouse gas emissions it would affect the world climate - which is not true. If we look at the evidence, it is unequivocal. Measurable - let alone dangerous - man-made global warming is not happening, and is not likely to happen in the future. The major cause for concern is the possibility of severe cooling. Global climate has always changed and recent climate changes are not unusual. The world was warmer in the Mediaeval Warm Period, in the Roman warm period and on many occasions before then. During these periods agriculture and civilisations flourished. During cold periods like the Little Ice Age there was famine, plague and war. Both the surface temperature records and the much more accurate records from satellite observations show that there was a brief warming period from 1975-1998: since then, the world has cooled. The world is now at the same temperature as it was in 1995. Nobody knows when - or if - world temperatures might increase. Since the research for the 2007 IPCC report was completed in early 2006, researchers have discovered that warming since 1975 is not caused by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas warming would be at a maximum 10,000 m above the tropics. Observations from balloons and satellites have shown that this warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. Computer-based climate models provide the only "evidence" supporting claims that the world is warming, that it will be dangerous, that there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like. These same models failed to predict that temperatures would peak in 1998 and that a steady cooling trend would set in from 2002. What is needed is a comprehensive review of the latest scientific evidence and observations. The new New Zealand government is leading the way with a review of the previous governments emissions trading scheme act that was passed in indecent haste with many amendments, without any economic justification and without an independent review of the sites.. Every other government in the world would do well to do likewise. It is a process that, surely, no one could object to.

News all over television today saying there is no global warming. We have gotten cooler since 1994. Al Gore may go down as one of the biggest snake oil salesmen in history. Many of the mandates set by the hysterical green freaks have caused much of the auto problems. Thank God Bush refused to sign the original Kyoto treaty further stressing out already stressed manufacturers.Polluting the atmosphere and running the landscape is one thing but blaming co2 for a world that is changing is another. Looks like the Obama administration is not any "change" at all but a third Clinton term. It is packed with Clinton people.The good news is that they were mostly moderates except for Henry Waxman, a green liberal, who heads up Dept. of Transportation and he could cause real trouble for the struggling auto industry by pushing his agenda too fast.

More delusional thinking. The climate is solar driven, not Co2 driven! Look up graphs of solar activity and temperatures, then look up Co2 versus temperatures. There is no relationship with Co2 except in the late 70's to about '98. Does the Gorical know the difference between a correlation and causality? Why did temperatures cool from the 40's to the mid 70's when fossil fuel use was growing at record levels along with Co2? By the late 70's the usual suspects were screaming about a new Ice Age caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Then it starts to warm and they get on the "Global Warming" train. When it stopped warming in '98, it became "climate change". While in theory Co2 can contribute to the Greenhouse effect, it is a weak greenhouse gas. Methane is 22 time more potent a Greenhouse gas, but apparently there is little money to be made from going after flatulent cows, termites and sewage plants!
Getting off oil makes a great deal a sense for many reasons. Technology will make this increasingly possible in the near future. Destroying the economies of the world to fight something that is not related to the normal swing of something as complex and chaotic as the planet's climate is illogical at best and criminal at worst.We may need the money to do what humans do best, adopt!
Fighting "Climate Change"? The climate has always changed! Does fat-cat Al explain the "Little Ice Age" with his totally discredited "Hockey Stick" Co2 graph? Why do the warmers pretend that there was no "Medieval Warm Period" when Co2 didn't rise at all?
I know, lets set up a commitee to fight darkness! After all, there seems to be more of it in the winter. There must be a way to make a bit of money on this! Think of the new government controls that can be put into place!

Agriculture is major contributor to global warming. Changes there have huge impact on carbon emission/sequestation. At the same time, they would be felt little by 99% of Britons who are not farmers. But I see that households and business are asked for costly and unpleasant actions. But farming is protected by lobbyists. It didn't even appear on "Economist" charts - as if land use didn't have anything to do with carbon cycle!